CRITICISM OF ISRAEL SHARPENED BY U.S. ON ARAB PROTESTS

By DAVID K. SHIPLER, Special to the New York Times

Published: December 23, 1987

WASHINGTON, Dec. 22—
After days of quiet and unsuccessful diplomatic appeals to Israeli leaders, the Reagan Administration today issued an unusual public criticism of the ''harsh security measures and excessive use of live ammunition'' by Israeli troops who have been confronting Palestinian demonstrators.

The statement, read by the White House spokesman and echoed in milder terms by the State Department, came hours before the United States declined to use its veto and allowed passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution deploring Israeli actions. The vote was 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining. [ Page A6. ] Explaining the decision to abstain, Herbert S. Okun, the American representative, described Israeli measures in the occupied territories as ''unacceptably harsh.'' #22 Palestinians Killed At least 22 Palestinians have been shot to death in the last two weeks by Israeli soldiers who were attacked with stones during protests in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The protests are widely regarded as the most serious since Israel captured the territories in 1967. Showing signs of extensive planning, the demonstrations have taken on unprecedented scope, involving large numbers of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, and also in East Jerusalem and within Israel's pre-1967 borders.

The violence has caused concern in the Reagan Administration, which faces its last year in office without having made clear gains in the Middle East peace process and with no concrete prospects for any. Previous Support for Israel

Paradoxically, an Administration with a record of practically unquestioned support for Israel has found its leverage on this issue almost nonexistent, especially given its aversion to threatening any reduction in the American military and economic aid on which Israel depends.

The Administration's criticisms today appeared designed to chart a middle path between inaction that would damage ties with Arab countries and overreaction that might risk damaging the Israeli-American relationship.

Marlin Fitzwater, the White House spokesman, blamed the Arabs as well, saying, ''Both sides share a responsibility for this violence.'' He also condemned the Israeli occupation, the effects of which ''are not felt in the territories alone,'' he said, but ''also damage the self-respect and world opinion of the Israeli people.'' Frustration in Washington

The Reagan Administration rarely criticizes Israel publicly and tried to avoid doing so on this occasion. But American officials were reported to have felt frustration and concern over Israeli leaders' refusal to bend to pleas from Washington on methods of controlling the protests.

At least three State Department officials made specific requests to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin to avoid using lethal ammunition and make more use of rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons instead, an Administration official said. In addition, officials reportedly renewed a longstanding suggestion that Israel to train an elite force of riot policemen rather than rely on ill-trained troops.

Often, soldiers and border policemen are sent to riot areas with no weapons other than their automatic rifles, and some have said that they find facing mobs of rock-throwing demonstrators more frightening than their experiences in combat. Conflicting Pressures on U.S. In the last two weeks, as the demonstrations have spread, the Administration has come under conflicting pressures from both Israel and Arab governments, an official said. Israel urged strongly that the United States use its veto to block the Security Council resolution, as Washington usually does with measures critical of Israel. Consequently, American officials expect Israel to interpret the abstention as a slap in the face.

By the same token, the official said, Egypt and other Arab governments have been lobbying for American intervention to force restraint on the Israelis.

Inside the Administration, officials have debated the appropriate action, with some Middle East specialists reportedly advocating a personal approach to Israeli leaders by Secretary of State George P. Shultz. Mr. Shultz has left the matter to his subordinates.

Last week, Michael H. Armacost, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Richard W. Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, met separately with Mr. Rabin, who was in Washington, to discuss the behavior of Israeli troops. Monday, the United States Ambassador in Israel, Thomas R. Pickering, met with Prime Minister Shamir, but reportedly got no satisfaction. 'Negative Consequences' Cited

''I think that people understand the limitations of what you can do because of the special nature of the Israeli-American relationship,'' said a well-placed Administration official. ''But there are long-term negative consequences.''

Speaking anonymously, and apparently reflecting a consensus among Government Middle East specialists, he criticized Israeli authorities for their frequent statements that Arabs understand only force. ''After 40 years of living with Israeli Arabs and after 21 years of West Bank Palestinians and Gazans living under their control, they still have not learned to deal with these people as people,'' he said. ''They're not dealing with them on an equal plane. They don't know each other; they don't talk to each other - ever.''

Administration officials also expressed concern over the effect of the clashes on peace efforts. As dormant as the process has been in recent months, Middle East specialists believe firmly that a semblance of motion has to be maintained; otherwise, they fear, a sense of stagnation and despair will ignite further violence, perhaps even a military conflict.

''Beyond the impact on individual Palestinians and Israelis,'' Mr. Fitzwater said, ''the continuing violence undermines prospects for serious attempts at economic progress in the territories and the broader peace process.''

Phyllis Oakley, a State Department spokeswoman, made a statement that was less pointed in its criticism of Israel. ''As we have said since this violence and counterviolence began,'' she declared, ''there is a need for restraint by all parties and a common commitment to deal with the underlying problems and frustrations.''

''Neither further disorder nor harsh security measures can contribute to reconciliation, negotiation and peace,'' Mrs. Oakley said. At the White House, Mr. Fitzwater declared, ''Demonstrations and riots on one side, and harsh security measures and excessive use of live ammunition on the other, cannot substitute for a genuine dialogue.''